ISO GUY said:
I would have to question the numbers on that survey. I know the one Registrar I work for has issued over 1000, 9001:2000 Certificates in the US.
I dread using statistics to make a point, because someone always seems to find a set diametrically opposed to mine.
In the case of ISO registrations in Europe and Asia compared to USA, it is necessary to consider the wide disparity of business cultures in Europe and Asia in addition to the higher frequency of cross-border transactions as factors in why so many organizations register.
At one time, many in USA considered ISO registration as a gatekeeper to limit USA penetration of European and Asian markets. The original purpose of creating some sort of level playing field to aid suppliers and buyers in saving costs by allowing third parties to examine QMS of suppliers versus each buyer doing independent audit was lost in the shuffle.
Other threads in our Cove Forums as well as in the ASQ Forums frequently dwell on the impression that registration is "bought."
AIAG created its own subset of ISO registration with QS9000. Many USA companies which might otherwise be registered to ISO followed the QS path. I predict a similar exodus to TS 16949.
USA companies which are strictly domestic in their sales rarely find customers forcing them to become registered. Some of those companies recognize advantages to ISO-style QMS and avoid the cost of formal registration by declaring themselves "compliant."
Many companies which were registered to 1994 ISO Standard found internal reasons for not stepping up to ISO 2000 registration. (No data, just anecdotal tales.)
Am I concerned because US organizations are not making formal registration? Not yet. I want to wait and see whether they are learning the lessons of "customer-centric" policies or if they will backslide to the original Ford policy with Model T -
"You can have any color you want, so long as it's black!"
